# A serious question for gun control advocates: effect of loosening gun laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127 "2016-04-25T21:29:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/181 "2016-05-06T00:40:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No - it means you were wrong. You confused “keep” with “bear” and I corrected you. You asked about the percentage of people in CA who couldn’t bear arms. I provided it to you. You thought the CA DOJ memo indicated that at least 2 manufacturers could do microstamping and I corrected you. I’m fairly certain that holding a handgun in my house is “bearing” a handgun. And again, those were people who supposedly can’t get CCW permits. They can “bear” their handgun in their house whenever they want, assuming they can at least purchase one. Unless you think the right to bear arms means being able to carry a handgun anywhere at anytime without qualification. DO you think that? I acknowledged the DOJ memo correction already. > [@](#): > > And to continue this trend - no, this is wrong too. There are not 1000s of other models for sale. [There are 767](http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/)available models for sale by FFLs. Ok, there are LITERALLY 767 other models you can buy > [@](#): > > I’ll be satisfied if the number includes all of the ones the police are able to purchase. Because under CA law, police are able to purchase handguns determined to be “unsafe”. While I feel that you say this due to some “I need to be able to fend off the state” mentality, I cannot say for certain. I will, however, agree with you that including in the number the ones the police are able to purchase is a fairly decent suggestion. However, whining about the “ban on guns” in CA when there are 767 models of handguns you can purchase strikes me as childish. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/182 "2016-05-06T04:19:51Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m fairly certain that holding a handgun in my house is “bearing” a handgun. And again, those were people who supposedly can’t get CCW permits. They can “bear” their handgun in their house whenever they want, assuming they can at least purchase one. Unless you think the right to bear arms means being able to carry a handgun anywhere at anytime without qualification. DO you think that? That may be bearing, but it’s not the extent of what bearing means. Just as you construe the word ban equivalent to “total ban”, bearing means carrying outside the home. At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” As in, Concealed CARRY permit. The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Confrontations are not limited to the home and neither is the right to bear. The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. It’s interesting that you add unrealistic qualifiers like “anywhere at anytime without qualification”. Is there anything I’ve written that would lead you to think that’s what I believe? The right to bear arms means the ability to carry as envisioned by the scheme that is recognized throughout the state, subject to the restrictions that all statewide carry permits are subject to. And for most residents of CA, they are unable to bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/183 "2016-05-06T14:39:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That may be bearing, but it’s not the extent of what bearing means. Just as you construe the word ban equivalent to “total ban”, bearing means carrying outside the home. At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” As in, Concealed CARRY permit. The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Confrontations are not limited to the home and neither is the right to bear. The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. > > It’s interesting that you add unrealistic qualifiers like “anywhere at anytime without qualification”. Is there anything I’ve written that would lead you to think that’s what I believe? The right to bear arms means the ability to carry as envisioned by the scheme that is recognized throughout the state, subject to the restrictions that all statewide carry permits are subject to. And for most residents of CA, they are unable to bear arms. Well, I wasn’t aware that one needed a Concealed CARRY permit at the time of the founding in order to carry a gun, but no matter. Perhaps if you had started with “Most residents of CA cannot carry a handgun outside of their home” instead of “Handguns are banned in CA”, then maybe a better discussion would have ensued. Then again, maybe you think those 2 sentences are equivalent. Or maybe “CA should have a CCW permit process that is evenly administered throughout the state” - also another position I would agree with. And if you don’t believe that you should be able to bear a handgun “anywhere at anytime without qualification” then can you state some places/times where you believe one SHOULDN’T be able to carry a handgun? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/184 "2016-05-06T15:50:43Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Perhaps if you had started with “Most residents of CA cannot carry a handgun outside of their home” instead of “Handguns are banned in CA”, then maybe a better discussion would have ensued. Then again, maybe you think those 2 sentences are equivalent. Actually, this is what started this line of discussion: > [@Bone](#): > > How do you explain the fact that all new model semi-auto pistols are banned from sale by FFLs? Do you not consider that a ban? I stated exactly the extent of what I was talking about and asked if that was considered a ban. Your attempt to portray that as some inaccurate interpretation of the current state of affairs notwithstanding. Ultimately this boils down to whether it is fair to characterize a ban on a large subset of items as a ban - be it an Assault Weapon Ban that you know, bans assault weapons, or a ban on all new semi auto handguns that do not possess technology that doesn’t exist. You seem to think that unless the entirety of firearms are banned, then these are not bans. I disagree - these things are bans. They are not total firearm bans, but they are bans nonetheless. This is the meaning of the word. > [@](#): > > And if you don’t believe that you should be able to bear a handgun “anywhere at anytime without qualification” then can you state some places/times where you believe one SHOULDN’T be able to carry a handgun? I would currently be satisfied with the places/times that are contemplated by the current law. When that goal is achieved, then I would evaluate to what extent it would be practical to extend those limits. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/185 "2016-05-06T16:14:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Actually, this is what started this line of discussion: > > I stated exactly the extent of what I was talking about and asked if that was considered a ban. Your attempt to portray that as some inaccurate interpretation of the current state of affairs notwithstanding. Ultimately this boils down to whether it is fair to characterize a ban on a large subset of items as a ban - be it an Assault Weapon Ban that you know, bans assault weapons, or a ban on all new semi auto handguns that do not possess technology that doesn’t exist. You seem to think that unless the entirety of firearms are banned, then these are not bans. I disagree - these things are bans. They are not total firearm bans, but they are bans nonetheless. This is the meaning of the word. Sorry, I do not agree that “Handguns are banned in CA” is a true statement. > [@](#): > > I would currently be satisfied with the places/times that are contemplated by the current law. When that goal is achieved, then I would evaluate to what extent it would be practical to extend those limits. That’s a great non-answer! Why don’t you state a SPECIFIC place/time that YOU feel a handgun should not be carried? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/186 "2016-05-06T16:21:50Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sorry, I do not agree that “Handguns are banned in CA” is a true statement. “I can fly unassisted by complex machinery” is also not a true statement. Do you know what those two things have in common? They are both things that I did not state. Good try though - in the figurative sense. Not in the literal sense because it’s a transparent attempt at a strawman. > [@](#): > > That’s a great non-answer! Why don’t you state a SPECIFIC place/time that YOU feel a handgun should not be carried? I decline your request. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/187 "2016-05-06T16:54:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > “I can fly unassisted by complex machinery” is also not a true statement. Well you are just not trying hard enough! > [@](#): > > I decline your request. As I knew you would. My guess is you DON’T think carrying a handgun should be limited in any fashion, but just don’t want to say that for fear of how it will make you look. Stand up and take ownership of your beliefs, man! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/188 "2016-05-06T17:11:57Z")
_DC v Heller_ is widely understood to have struck down Washington DC’s handgun “ban”. Even there though, Washington DC didn’t have an absolute “ban” on all ownership of handguns, at least if you subscribe to manson1972’s definition. If one had properly registered his/her handgun sometime prior to 1975, one was legally allowed to continue to possess it. This ‘grandfather’ exception applied to a ridiculously-tiny fraction of DC residents by the time the Supreme Court heard Heller’s case in 2008, which is why it was pretty much universally understood to be a “ban” on the ownership of handguns. I don’t think anyone associated with the Heller case seriously tried to argue that DC hadn’t actually banned handgun ownership, because some octogenarian somewhere in the District still had a licensed handgun from the '60’s. It’s such a silly argument on its face. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/189 "2016-05-06T17:16:01Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Or maybe “CA should have a CCW permit process that is evenly administered throughout the state” - also another position I would agree with. This is badly needed, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/190 "2016-05-06T17:29:54Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > _DC v Heller_ is widely understood to have struck down Washington DC’s handgun “ban”. Even there though, Washington DC didn’t have an absolute “ban” on all ownership of handguns, at least if you subscribe to manson1972’s definition. If one had properly registered his/her handgun sometime prior to 1975, one was legally allowed to continue to possess it. This ‘grandfather’ exception applied to a ridiculously-tiny fraction of DC residents by the time the Supreme Court heard Heller’s case in 2008, which is why it was pretty much universally understood to be a “ban” on the ownership of handguns. I don’t think anyone associated with the Heller case seriously tried to argue that DC hadn’t actually banned handgun ownership, because some octogenarian somewhere in the District still had a licensed handgun from the '60’s. It’s such a silly argument on its face. I don’t have a formal definition of “ban” But I do not define it as “767 types of handguns for sale” Were there numerous gun stores in DC at the time that had 767 types of handguns for sale? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/191 "2016-05-06T17:36:17Z")
As an aside to whatever discussion is going on, and because I would actually like to learn something, it seems everyone is waiting for the results of the Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego case regarding CCW permits. Do I have that correct? ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/192 "2016-05-07T03:55:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > This is badly needed, I agree. I’m not sure Colusa County requires the same CCW requirements as does Orange County. One being extremely rural with the biggest town at around 4000 population versus the heart of LA. Want to explain why these two very diverse counties should have the exact same CCW requirements? Just curious ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/193 "2016-05-07T05:37:53Z")
Because CA specifically preempts local laws with regard to licencing. The state intends to occupy the while of the space concerning firearm laws in this area. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/194 "2016-05-07T08:11:43Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > I’m not sure Colusa County requires the same CCW requirements as does Orange County. One being extremely rural with the biggest town at around 4000 population versus the heart of LA. Want to explain why these two very diverse counties should have the exact same CCW requirements? Just curious Sure, it’s all one state. Even LA County has small rural burgs in it. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/195 "2016-05-07T14:17:12Z")
Statewide preemption in CA would almost certainly mean making the lenient counties stricter, rather than vice-versa. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/196 "2016-05-07T14:28:47Z")
There is already statewide preemption. Since CA is a may issue state this means the sheriff’s have complete discretion whom they issue permits to. Anything more strict would easily be defeated since no issue at all would clearly run afoul of Heller. What preemption has done is help eliminate counties imposing additional requirements for permitting not contemplated by the state. Things like additional fees, psychological testing, more onerous training, neighbor vouching, etc. It also was instrumental in striking down San Francisco’s ordinance attempting to ban handguns. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/197 "2016-05-09T17:12:44Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > The point is that it’ll never be feasible, so its not worth worrying about. I’m against Martian attacks but also against making laws to protect us against Martian attacks. I agree that it is not politically feasible and the gun issue doesn’t really affect my vote. But, given the desire of the gun control crowd, I can’t really tell people they are crazy to vote based on gun control because the gun control crowd does in fact want to ban guns and in some places, they enact gun bans. > [@](#): > > And I see that as a contradiction. If you have no fear about a gun ban, then you shouldn’t vote or debate as if one’s right around the corner. I don’t. I am presenting the position of other gun rights folks who have a valid position. just because I don’t think a gun ban is impossible doesn’t mean that it actually is. I support licensing and registration and the push back I get from gun rights folks is always that we can’t trust the gun control folks to stop there and the pushback I get from the gun control folks is that licensing and registration is good start but we should keep striving for more. > [@](#): > > What I see from you and others is the misguided belief that a gun ban is right around the corner, that if you don’t fight tooth and nail against it, it’ll happen for sure. Yet you claim that you’re not afraid of it. Which is again illustrated by the following quote I think you misunderstand my position. > [@](#): > > “Breathing room” implies that there is some life in a gun ban. There isn’t, by your own words. Therefore, there’s no danger to guns if you supported politicians without considering their gun stance. At the same time I think that reasonable people can disagree on the possibility of a gun ban at SOME point in the future. > [@](#): > > Also, gun rights people always seem to overestimate the number of people who want to ban guns. Just how did you get your “large segment” claim? What are you basing that on? What are the numbers? Based on the gun control folks on this board, I’d say a LOT of the gun control folks favor a total ban on guns. When the gun control rhetoric is filled with references to “other countries” where guns are effectively banned and arguments that inevitably lead to the conclusion that we should ban guns, its hard to see where the gun control advocates are actually arguing for limited ambitions on the gun control front. I have yet to hear a gun control advocate say “lets try licensing and registration and if that doesn’t work, then we’re done. We live with what we got.” Licensing and registration is just the next thing they want to try and if that doesn’t work, they will want something closer and closer to a total gun ban regardless of how poorly their ideas pan out. > [@](#): > > Somehow I don’t think even that will do it. In another topic once, I hypothesized about a fictional scenario that I think would be the only way to get something like it through, and it involved a mass attack on gun friendly politicians by a gun friendly zealot, and even then everything had to fall into place perfectly. So you can feel safe in the fact that even someone as anti-gun as me doesn’t believe there’s a realistic scenario in which a gun ban can happen/ I think that we could have gotten licensing and registration in the aftermath of Sandy Hook if the gun control folks could only have stopped themselves from stepping on their own dicks. One of the primary points of failure for the gun control crowd is that they are in general ignorant and incorrect about gun and how to stop gun violence. They are focused on recuing legal access to guns because its pretty much the only thing they can effectively control. > [@](#): > > That seems harsh. The pro-choice side has been nothing except factual and open about the realities of abortion, and their desire to reduce it without restricting choice. the anti-choice side is the one doing all of the lying. I think the pro-life side sees things exactly the other way. > [@](#): > > I’m totally for that too. Obama has done a lot (and of course he can do a lot more) to reform some of the punishment associated with drug crimes. Democrats will build on that. The GOP wants to pull us backwards and then some There are things on which I agree with the Republicans and thing on which I agree with the Democrats. I try not to pattern my beliefs based on whether the beliefs are Democratic or Republicans. Republicans just happen to believe a lot more awful stupid shit but Democrats have their share of awful stupid shit too. > [@](#): > > These particular people are Republicans. It doesn’t matter what they claim to be, if they only care about gun issues and only vote Republican because they don’t trust Democrats on guns, then they are Republicans. This board has had many debates on the so-called libertarians. As far as I’m concerned, a lot of these guys are Republicans. That’s how they vote, that’s who they support, and that’s how they think. No they’re not. They rarely ever vote and the only reason they vote Republican is because the Republicans is always on the pro side of the gun debate. if the Democrat was on the pro-side of the gun debate and the Republican was Michael Bloomberg, they would vote for the Democrat. They couldn’t care less about tax policy, foreign policy, spending, social programs or anything else. > [@](#): > > To me, the biggest deciding factor on reasonableness is the logic and facts surrounding your beliefs. Yes, absolutely 100% are the pro-life side the only unreasonable ones. They lie about the facts, they harass people who are vulnerable, they set up fake clinics to trick women, they make up fake documentaries about imaginary procedures, they bully their religious beliefs on everyone else. You bet your ass that they are the only ones unreasonable, its not even a debate, how many arguments do you see anti-choicers win? Do you think carrying a sign with a picture of a dead fetus is a reasoned debate? I think pro-life folks see things exactly the other way. And what is deceptive or unreasonable about showing a dead fetus if that dead fetus is the result of an abortion? > [@](#): > > As you said yourself, no one except Jesus can do that, and you also said you’re not afraid that it will realistically happen. Yet you argue like that could change in a second. I think you really need to take a look at what is reasonable about your stance and what isn’t and act accordingly. You want to have your cake (pretend like guns are going to be banned if you don’t do anything) and eat it too (but claim you’re reasonable because you don’t think it will happen). Those are two mutually exclusive beliefs that you need to work on. My belief is not mutually exclusive with the reasonableness of other’s beliefs. > [@](#): > > I’m fine with car-like training and registration requirements for guns. As am I. Would you be OK with elimination of all state and local gun laws so there is uniformity among the states? Would you be OK with no further gun control whatsoever after we have licensing and registration regardless of whether licensing and registration gets you the results you want or not? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/198 "2016-05-09T17:21:05Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I would consider that equivalent. You wouldn’t? No. Of course not. If I said that gays are not allowed to be scout leaders but lesbians can would that amount to a ban on homosexuals in the Boy Scouts? Or would you say that there was a ban on "some’ homosexuals in the boyscouts? If I banned books that I didn’t like but allowed books I did like would you call that a ban on books or a ban on “some books” > [@](#): > > Also, can I buy a handgun in California or not? It depends. You can buy handguns that are on a pre-approved list, all others are banned. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/199 "2016-05-09T17:25:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That seems overly nitpicky for a general discussion. > > Is it possible for me to purchase a handgun in CA or not? Can I, a normal citizen of the state of CA, purchase a handgun? Is it possible? Are there so many laws and such that I can’t purchase a handgun in CA? So youa greed that if the list of permissible handguns was a list of one, that would constitute a ban but a list that includes all but one does not. I agree with you. Where does the list becomes so narrow that it is tantamount to a ban as you define it? Would a law saying that only firearms that were available during the writing of the constitution be a ban? How about firearms that don’t implement a technology that doesn’t exist yet? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/200 "2016-05-09T17:26:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I know right? Why not just redefine what words mean and ascribe or eliminate meaning of words entirely. No need to be nitpicky about equivocation. I see what you did there. nice work. You took their nit picky use of the word ban and used nitpickiness on them to show them how nitpicky they were being. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127.md?page=11)